*sighs* Because opponent has failed to debate with me, I will still attempt to argue and will make my own arguments and (if possible) rebuttals. I was actually thinking that opponent was at least somewhat skilled and this would not become another troll debate. I could have chosen other debates, but those are far more complex which require more willpower and time to achieve effectively. If opponent fails to argue and forfeits in the last round, then I automatically win simply from forfeiture alone. I am sorry to all voters who may think I am trying to humiliate opponent for debating with such a low skilled person - there were no other debates at the time as others were impossible to accept or (as stated before) required too much time and motivation (I currently am studying for exams so...).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Death penalty is something that has always been part of human history. Almost all ancient and historical civilizations had the death penalty as a way to punish the most severe crimes and eliminate the most dangerous criminals for the better of society since they were not fit to survive (in this case, fit means not being a lawful and obedient citizen). However, as time went by and as politicians and monarchies became more corrupt over the centuries, the death penalty has been severely abused and even minor crimes were solved with such a risky punishment. In the modern times, many countries have eliminated it from law, though some still have it and reduced the "violence" of the penalty to fit with modern times [1] (i.e., using a gun and shooting only one bullet into the criminal's head instead of hanging or decapitations). There are many reasons why I think the death penalty should be brought back despite of this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument #1: Sets example to other dangerous criminals

As it has been proven in the past, any form of extreme punishment to discipline the wrong has been effective to reducing crime rate and teaching others. This is because it evokes fear into those that have done the same, and to other criminals that have done less, so that they will be strongly be reminded that if they get caught or do the same act again, they will be executed in the most brutal and humiliating way possible. In the past and even now, many are afraid of death, so a reminder of death is more than enough to reduce the crime rate. However, there are those that do not fear death but still fear pain, so pain is also a great reminder as well - not that I'm approving of torture. And by human nature, only the insane and cold-hearted (say, the military) show no remorse, the rest do no matter how evil [2].

Argument #2: Indirectly disciplines children and the ignorant

Not only setting an example for dangerous criminals, it also sets a great example for children and the ignorant, who lack knowledge and experience on such matters. It sets a great example on such people as they know absolutely nothing of the subject, allowing them to be educated [3] and prevent them from turning into dangerous criminals from a young age or early point in their life - and not when it is too late to do so. Children and ignorant people are extremely manipulative due to their...let's just call it low intelligence to be politically correct...and by manipulating them in good ways, society and the government can teach them how to act just. This will result in a reduced crime rate and can prevent even more criminals from suffering the fate of committing such extreme acts.

Argument #3: Saves money wasted on housing prisoners

Probably the most effective reason to promote and legalize the death penalty again in countries were it is illegal is to save money that is wasted on housing prisoners. As one may or may not know, prisoners are required to be taken care of while in prison as it is not only a violation of certain laws and human rights, it also is immoral and unethical to do so. The government then has to waste precious tax money on providing the necessities for the criminals so they can at least survive [4]. And that's not to include the costs for other expenses as well [5], such as electricity, construction tools/resources, gas/diesel, and work wages for guards working there. So by housing prisoners instead of killing them, it only helps them instead of make them reflect on their mistakes because they do not need to work or earn the privilege of eating, drinking, sleeping, etc. Criminals should not be taken care of because of what they done - many criminals actually enjoy prison and adapt to it to make it become their own paradise. And for others that hate it, once they come out, they will commit more crimes [6]. So by legalizing the penalty, criminals would not have access to such gifts because of what they have done and the fact that many enjoy prison and/or will not change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the sources that I promised to provide to make my arguments more authentic as well as to debunk any form of skeptical beliefs to opponent. I hope that opponent can argue and refute with me in the next round or they will have a 90% chance of losing from forfeiture alone. Please do not chicken out or refuse to debate with me simply because you will know I will win and that I am more skilled. If opponent wants, PM me to decide when and how a rematch of this debate will occur and be planned out like. Again, here are the sources below that are legitimate and trustworthy, in case anybody tries to accuse me of using false evidence (this is my first attempt at embedded citations in a debate, but I do have experience and skill with it in formal essays):

@tomlangford, I think this debate would be interesting, and I would accept (as I live in America where the Death Penalty is legal). I am an advocate for the Death Penalty; however, I will not accept this debate, as I am currently debating someone else, and then I will continue with what I am currently doing.

Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited multiple rounds. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Pro. Con failed to rebut any and all points raised by Pro. Since Pro was left standing unchallenged, it's an automatic win in regards to arguments. Sources - Pro. Con failed to utilize any sources within this debate whereas Pro utilized several. **Pro, instead of typing "I forfeit this round" simply type in "extend". By saying you forfeit a round it's like the equivalent of actually forfeiting a round, which results in conduct point loss.